The NHL took a preemptive strike against the NHL Players' Association dissolving the union by filing a class-action complaint in federal court in New York asking for confirmation of the ongoing legality of the lockout.

In a news release, the NHL explained that the move was in response to NHL players being asked to vote on whether the union should proceed to a "disclaimer of interest" status. There are two methods of dissolving the union. Players can have a formal vote to decertify or the NHLPA can disclaim interest, which essentially means it announces that the union no longer represents the players.

"The idea is to get in the most favorable court as possible, and to get home-ice advantage," said associate professor Gabriel Feldman, director of Tulane's Sports Law program. "That's why they struck first. It's a preemptive filing to try to get the case in a friendly jurisdiction. Based on where similar cases have been heard in the past, New York would appear to be a league-friendly jurisdiction."

Fred wrote:Rather than buy a NHL franchise just investing your down payment you can do a lot better by simply investing. Think if you invested in gold 10 years ago would that be better or worse than buying a NHL team.

Gold eh, why not copper Mr Hindsight?

In 2004 the average NHL franchise was worth $163mil.

In 2012 the average NHL franchise is worth $282mil.

In the same period total NHL revenues have gone from $2.2mil to $3.3mil.

In the same period the average NHL team has gone from losing $3.2mil to making $8.3mil (net operating income).

Those are pretty healthy numbers.

If I could buy some shares of dat dere going forward, speculating on a 50/50 split, I'd buy me some.

All numbers are from Forbes cuz hey that's all we've got (where do you think your pal on the radio gets his numbers from - Forbes or his bottom?).

Fred wrote:If I were a banker I sure as heck would have to be convinced to ectend credit to any one buying a franchise. Taht's why Phx is having so much trouble selling. Heck the guy thats looking to take over was looking for some one to partner him for $20 mill ....he couldn't find any one !!

Well now that the lease package is in place, Jamison is buying in at $170mil:

Naw. I'm thinking if he's only 18 then his mother would be way to young for me

By the way did you see that quote where the PA is suggesting that the NHL want players have the right to choose if they belong to the Union, ie the right to work argument.

Ottawa Sun

"The NHL appears to be arguing that players should be stopped from even considering their right to decide whether or not to be represented by a union. We believe that (the NHL's) position is completely without merit," said the NHLPA in a statement released late Friday.

Fred wrote:Naw. I'm thinking if he's only 18 then his mother would be way to young for me

By the way did you see that quote where the PA is suggesting that the NHL want players have the right to choose if they belong to the Union, ie the right to work argument.

Ottawa Sun

"The NHL appears to be arguing that players should be stopped from even considering their right to decide whether or not to be represented by a union. We believe that (the NHL's) position is completely without merit," said the NHLPA in a statement released late Friday.

This shit show does not want to end no matter who's side your on. Irrepable damage is coming. I am such a die hard Canucklehead, but now i am getting pissed off. Two fucktards cant get it together to split billions of dollars and now we get this. FFS get your act together.

You're right about the court battle thing... if it does go that far, I can't see this ending soon or anything but horribly messily - far more so than at the moment. One side has to back down... but which one? My own personal viewpoint is that - whether their perceptions are right or wrong - the NHLPA and players are standing firm on principles... the NHL and owners are standing firm on the basis of economic survival. And not only can the latter outlast the former IMHO, but (again with the proviso that this is a perception, not necessarily reality) economic survival trumps principles every single time. The NHLPA believe that they shouldn't surrender... the NHL believe that they can't.

Fred wrote:From a different forum, a poster kind of sums it up pretty well ??

You're right about the court battle thing... if it does go that far, I can't see this ending soon or anything but horribly messily - far more so than at the moment. One side has to back down... but which one? My own personal viewpoint is that - whether their perceptions are right or wrong - the NHLPA and players are standing firm on principles... the NHL and owners are standing firm on the basis of economic survival. And not only can the latter outlast the former IMHO, but (again with the proviso that this is a perception, not necessarily reality) economic survival trumps principles every single time. The NHLPA believe that they shouldn't surrender... the NHL believe that they can't.

This could end with a scorched-earth type of action. Not good.

Nope, I see it the other way round. It's the owners who are holding on principle, they are trying to break the union, by ramming their deal on their terms and nothing less will do.

They could and can have what they want with a softer approach and a transition CBA But that won't give them carte blanche. That's what they seem to want.

What are the chances this forces the league and PA to make a deal to salvage the season? I see it helped the NBA finally come to an agreement....does anyone know if this could help? I haven't really cared about the mechanics of all these negotiations other than how they screw me out of hockey and that's all I honestly care about!

ukcanuck wrote:Nope, I see it the other way round. It's the owners who are holding on principle, they are trying to break the union, by ramming their deal on their terms and nothing less will do.

They could and can have what they want with a softer approach and a transition CBA But that won't give them carte blanche. That's what they seem to want.

The players? They just want the money that's owed....

Sorry UK you loose by a vote of two to one and by the way the quote I gave was from a UK forum, truly do you really think the ownes are trying to break the union, rather than getting a deal all 30 teams can live with. I'd like to see contraction as part of the settlement so there are not so many teams dragging the league down but it ain't going to happen, because the players don't want it. But it might happen if the season is lost

ukcanuck wrote:Nope, I see it the other way round. It's the owners who are holding on principle, they are trying to break the union, by ramming their deal on their terms and nothing less will do.

They could and can have what they want with a softer approach and a transition CBA But that won't give them carte blanche. That's what they seem to want.

The players? They just want the money that's owed....

Sorry UK you loose by a vote of two to one and by the way the quote I gave was from a UK forum, truly do you really think the ownes are trying to break the union, rather than getting a deal all 30 teams can live with. I'd like to see contraction as part of the settlement so there are not so many teams dragging the league down but it ain't going to happen, because the players don't want it. But it might happen if the season is lost

I'm thinking that the league could have been way more creative in offering a more palatable transition at the very least. If they are really concerned about the bottom feeding teams they could have linked a revenue sharing component. but they have done none of those things. They have a lockout and keep offering ultimatums

This is not how you negotiate unless you have designs on destroying the other side.

The funny thing is that we are hearing a lot of older players still standing strong. Brendan Morrison??? Wtf?? Any of the guys over 35 should be shitting themselves at the idea of DE-certifying, or Disclaimer of Interest. That screams this season, and most of next season being lost, and with that, any chance that they will be the guys playing.

With the Disclaimer of Interest threat being thrown around, does anyone know what the definition of a Member if the NHLPA is?? Their Constitution states it as "ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP Section 1. All players who are on an NHL Club roster shall be eligible for membership in the Association."

But, who does that include? Is it the 23 man roster? The Collective agreement definition? Anyone with a contract with the NHL??? The reason I ask is that I have no idea who would be voting on either DE-certification, or, whether to ratify the Owner's proposal, if it ever went to a vote. My guess is that if the membership is everyone with a contract, including the 2 way contracts playing in the AHL and other leagues, then the Crosbys and Malkins of the league don't want a vote, as they fear damned near anything would get passed, and those kids know their window of opportunity in the league is shrinking.

I'm thinking that the league could have been way more creative in offering a more palatable transition at the very least. If they are really concerned about the bottom feeding teams they could have linked a revenue sharing component. but they have done none of those things. They have a lockout and keep offering ultimatums

This is not how you negotiate unless you have designs on destroying the other side.

Having a union is in the NHL's best interest, a united body who can be addressed.

Profit sharing, it sounds good but think of this. For years the Canucks were a team that struggled at the gate, few people attended a game. Tickets needed to be cheap but more than that they also needed to address the problem with marketing companies and sales force to try and build the franchise up. It took a long time and a lot of money to do that. They suffered financially as a result. Having invested so much time and money into establishing the franchise now on a solid footing it's suggested that they should now participate in doing the same for teams that are unwilling themselves. Teams that have suffered and do not want to invest more money ie good money after bad. If I'm the Aqualini family I'm thinking " that doesn't sound fair to me, and I don't want to invest more into say Colombus or Florida, I want to recoup what the franchise lost already " It's a conundrum. Teams that have lost a lot don't want to throw away more money and given half a chance would like to just get their money back, teams like Florida are giving away more tickets than they're sellin, and the teams that do have money don't want to invest money in a competing teams financial woes. with only a slim chance of ever seeing a return on the money they're asked to give away.

It's not as easy as it looks. Teams like the Ranger have reinvested in their own product immensely by broadening their scope with TV stations and basketball, and sales staffs bringing in shows and the infamous circus to MSG. Chicago were a failing franchise just a short couple of years ago, turning the corner for them I'm sure took a lot of money pumped back in. Teams like Edmonton are tenuous at best. IMO the league is split in to 3 groups

A) Teams that are doing well...30%B) Teams that are doing very badlyC) Teams that are just holding their own

All of those teams have paid millions for their franchise, take the entire risk.

The players on the other hand have paid nothing, risk nothing and are being paid the best salary they have ever received in the history of the sport.

As to players...ex players.. like Morrison you can bet he's talk loud and often about pension rights

Fred wrote: Rather than buy a NHL franchise just investing your down payment you can do a lot better by simply investing. Think if you invested in gold 10 years ago would that be better or worse than buying a NHL team.